Martin dropping some truth bombs here! Boom!!
Let's face it: if an individual is cool and fine with a person, up until they open up about something like this... then that person's a transphobe (in this case). It doesn't reflect on the trans person; it reflects on the other party. If someone says "I like you, but you're trans", the only logical reply is "I like you, but you're a transphobe". Period.
So... No Kim. No blaming yourself. Bad. Bad vixen. No self-blaming. >:|

Also, gold star for Star for handling this like a champ so far!
Not dismissing it with a usual "Okay, and...?" (I mean, this is still part of someone's identity - dismissing it would be rude...) while still not making a huge deal out of it; in fact, simply being cool and open, not pushy while acknowledging and keeping an open line of communication for the other party to talk about it at their own pace is great!

Truly, a work of art on many levels. <3

AGirlInADiaper wrote:Say a woman wants kids (as in wants to carry them herself,) but the person to whom she's attracted doesn't have an actual set of testicles"
There are technological and technical ways around that: https://www.healthline.com/health/p.....y-another-girl , https://abc7news.com/two-moms-mothe.....-baby/4576470/
And I'm not going to bother mentioning adoption any further than this passing line, as this is a very valid and good thing to do as well.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:Or a guy wants kids, but the person he says this to is not able to carry children.
There is such a thing as surrogates, in-vitro fertilization and a number of other conception assistance technique that are used for cis-couples in which one, or both, of the parties cannot bear children for whatever reason. Unless there are more issues at play here, which there very much could be given the seemingly potential dynamic that is desired by Kim and Martin, those solutions are likely very possible venues. But, again, without more information as to the why they want the dynamic they are hinting at, it's hard to tell.
But nevertheless, your arguments don't hold water simply because there are a number of same-sex and cis couples that cannot bear children that have found ways to have biological children.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:But I might start exploring where Martin and Kim want to go. "our previous three-way relationship" kinda points sexual in my mind
You are making one heck of an assumption here, I'd say, seeing as the statement Kim made was "Things went sour VERY quickly when I opened up to Martin and our previous partner, Hailey." seems to imply that it was the simple fact that Kim is trans that was an issue. Her previous statement of "I understand if you don't want anything to do with me..." further pushes that narrative, as someone was expecting something, got something else and could not accept that it was a thing.

The fact that Kim blames herself for what happened, which is hinted at the root cause (in her head) being her transgenderness, is pretty telling of an issue.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:so I'd want to know if they were planning for it to be there or if they wanted me to be their *baby*.... because you don't have sex with your baby. (Not to diss anyone who has a fully adult partner who plays baby sometimes, just for me, when I'm little, I don't want to be played with that way)
You're projecting your own thoughts onto a character we haven't seen here and omitting the fact that it wasn't even mentioned. Maybe it was sexual, maybe it wasn't. For them, maybe it was sexual and was agreed upon until Kim came out as trans, at which point it wasn't anymore. Or maybe it was not even sexual, but the other person could not accept a trans person as a mommy.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:I'm sure Kim can be and probably was/will be a great Mummy figure for Star. Biology does not change feelings and love.
You'd be surprised at how many people have a love that'd conditional to what's between your legs. Let's not even go into other conditional reasons for love, either.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:I'm aware of all that. Of note, I did say "as in carry them herself". None of those other options allow for that, save perhaps invitro.
Let's flip your argument around; what if the issue, then, is that the female has had a hysterectomy?
The options I stated are still valid. If the only single thing that matters is carrying the child in the argument, and not having a child in and of itself, then your argument works. But if the "real" end goal is to have a child, then a couple, no matter the composition, will do as much as they can to have a child. That's why it's not uncommon for infertile couple to spend tens of thousands of dollars on therapies to get a child, and the person with the womb carrying the child or not is a less important thing than having the child itself.

Also, in which case, if the thing that matters is being pregnant, then she could be a surrogate for other couples, get paid for it (at least in the USA) or not if she decides that being pregnant is what matters to her, and not have to keep the child, in which case your requirement is still fulfilled.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:Also,I did say that the reactions I suggested would be mine, so yes, my own thoughts would be what I'm discussing
And yet, you seem to be projecting your thoughts onto me, as I wasn't discussing you, but Hailey's reaction; judging my comment about Hailey from your own perspective. So you're being defensive over me judging someone else, because your opinion of what you think you would do/say differs from what that character has done...?

So are you arguing for yourself, or for Hailey then?
If the former, then this discussion doesn't work as I'm basing my argumentation on what Hailey said and did, as reported by Kim and Martin so far, whereas you are basing your own arguments on what you think and would do.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:urther, I said I'd want to explore what they meant, not assume it. More info is needed.
And yet, you literally are setting aside a complete and valid point linked to polyamoury because you think it's sexual because it is for you, whereas the situation hasn't been established yet and therefore that possibily remains on the table.
That's bad debate mojo...

AGirlInADiaper wrote:Bottom line for me, I don't think that we should be calling "transphobe" until someone specifically says something to the effect of "Ewwww you used to have a d**k?" or some such.
I'll be using the same litmus test as below, which you are aware of because you already replied to it.
You don't have to be saying "I hate black people" to be racist. You can make a racist joke without thinking you're being racist, and yet you are (eg: "I don't hate black people - I think everyone should own one" as an example, is a very racist joke). Or say something homophobic without thinking that it is (eg: "I have nothing against homosexuals; I just don't want them in my neighbourhood.").

Again, as Kim points out in the comic, the issue started, to the point of it getting "quite nasty", after she "came out" as trans to Hailey, which means that this "admission" was the catalyst that drove Hailey away.
"Quite nasty" here implies something very dark and disgusting. Bad treatment, disparaging words, or who knows what (Star/Squig does! And likely Kim/Gamer2 as well!). All of which, because they stem from Kim's transness makes those actions, words and implications being "transphobic". Intent is not needed to be doing an ism.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:And yes, I know what poly is. I also know Ms. Sammy has said that sex is low priority for her, and I think I recall that it is for Star as well. That kind of removes the problem, unless someone puts her in a crib with a voice activated vibrator and tells her she has to baby-talk to make it do happy buzzes.
You're projecting and assuming a lot here, once more removing an entire side of the argument that is still valid until pointed otherwise because it doesn't fit your narrative of the situation.

A relationship can or not have a sexual component to it. The fact that the words used are explicitely " three-way relationship" and not "threesome", "ménage à trois" (which technically can also be used in a non-sexual way, since it literally means "family of three", just in English, the term has been co-opted to mean a threesome, whereas in French it can be either really - context is everything!) demonstrates that it is very likely we're not just talking about a threesome, but a "family unit", not unlike what many Furries have; babyfurs with a "mommy" and "Daddy" and "siblings". But it could - or not! - have a sexual component to it as well. I'm not dismissing that possibility, but to say "this is what it means" is literally removing the entire polyamorous definition of that term, which exists and is used at large, thus making for a very bad argument on your part.

And while sex might or might not be part of the reality for Star/Squig, this remains a fiction with fictional characters (even though some are the "property" of real people, and/or modified to act a certain way for the sake of the story, not unlike Marrelis); however, I happen to know, and this is easily verifiable on FA itself, that Kim is  Gamer2 who happens to be trans. And from what I gather of Star/Squig/Sam, they aren't the kind of person to unilaterally talk about a topic they aren't familiar with in the name of people of that community, which falls into the same vein as the "White Saviour" behaviour (how a white person will advocate for non-white people by talking for them instead of letting them talk).
In this way, I wouldn't be surprised at all that the "real life" Kim had something to say about how this is going down, since they are actually "living that truth", so to speak.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:Lest my message come off sarcastic or rude, that's not what I mean. I'm just discussing points of view.
I'll just leave this here:
"Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong."
RationalWiki: Just asking questions

You're literally trying to defend a behaviour that comes is transphobe and is very likely transphobic in its nature (see my litmus test below, again) (and also: a behaviour can be transphobic by happenstance, not needing intent as stated earlier) by "just discussing points of views", or using synonyms, "just asking questions".

And oh, I forgot to say this:

AGirlInADiaper wrote:"our previous three-way relationship" kinda points sexual in my mind
I'd suggest you brush up on polyamory; a trifecta/triangle/throuple/triad relationship is a thing in such polyamorous relationship, in which case it is a three-way relationship, not just a threesome: https://www.healthline.com/health/r.....ships/throuple

Healthline wrote:What exactly is a throuple?
Taylor offers this definition: “A throuple is a relationship between three people who have all unanimously agreed to be in a romantic, loving, relationship together with the consent of all people involved.”

You may also hear a throuple referred to as a three-way relationship, triad, or closed triad.
Italic emphasis mine to mimic the original source's editing.

KitsuneSkyy wrote:this subject is not black and white as your making it out to be
There's a pretty simple litmus test: replace the current "ism" by a more widespread (or easily spotted/understood) one, and see if it stays an "ism" or not.
For the sake of the argument, let's use racism instead since that's a fairly easily understood ism compared to transphobism:

Kim: "Look, I'm just going to come out and say it. I'm black."
Kim: "I'm sorry if you don't want anything to do with me..."
Star: "Why would you think that? That's horrible!"
Kim: "Our previous relationship went south VERY quickly when I opened to Martin and our previous partner, Hailey. She couldn't deal with ANY of it and... We... It got quite nasty. It tore us apart. Out little unit collapsed because of me."

Would you say that, in this modified exchange, Hailey's behaviour was racist, since Kim's skin tone was what seemingly drove them apart?
Yes? Then congratulations, you found out that the comment Hailey made was transphobic.

Sure, it's not "as black and white as your [sic] making it out to be", but fact remains that Hailey's behaviour was transphobic, the same way it would be racist if "trans" was replaced with "black".
It really isn't rocket science either.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:So does that mean that someone who only wants LGBT+ partners is heterophobic? Or since Martin is Kim's partner, is he cisphobic?
Nice Whataboutism and composition/division, but sure, I'll bite.

There's a huge difference between, let's use as an example, a straight male being hit on by an homosexual man, and saying "Hey buddy, thanks for the compliment, but I don't swing that way" - which is not homophobic in the slightest, but simply displays a lack of interest in the person due to the nature of the relationship that would ensue ,
and having the person reply "DON'T HIT ON ME YOU <expletive deleted>" and the straight male punching and kicking the homosexual male.

The former is respectful and posed, not "hating" on the other individual in the scenario because there is nothing wrong with having preferences.
The second, however (and yes, I'll admit it is an extreme demonstration of a scenario, but I'm making a point), is very homophobic in nature because the reaction is by far over-the-top, causing actual harm.
And simple "rejection" isn't actual harm.

Now, let's transpose this to the situation at hand:
Hailey, upon hearing that Kim is trans, made it so bad that the relationship they shared turned toxic (as stated with "She couldn't deal with ANY of it" and "it got quite nasty", linking the behaviour to the coming out as trans). Nothing stopped Hailey from saying "Look, I have nothing against you but I cannot be romantically involved with someone who is trans."; while mildly transphobic in nature, if one is to push the enveloppe to an unfair point, it still is rooted in respect and doesn't close the door to friendship, meaning that there is an acceptance of the transness, but not in the desired level of closeness, which is fine.
But to cause the relationship to fail and get "quite nasty" following that information is akin to emotional/psychological violence, since it implies that everything was fine between them three before Kim's coming out, which again the wording implies happened after a certain amount of time of the three of them being together ("our previous three-way relationship went south VERY quickly when I opened up to Martin and our previous partner, Hailey." - emphasis mine - the word "partner" here implies that they were already considering themselves a unit).

AGirlInADiaper wrote:People like who they like, screw who they screw, and for our shared kink, change or allow to change them, those who they allow and are willing.
There's a difference between saying "thanks but no thanks" to someone who isn't fitting your preferential spectrum, and literally becoming toxic after finding someone is something you don't want to date, or maybe even want to be involved with.

That's why it's dangerous for trans people, especially trans women, to just date. Even more so for POC trans women ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-m.....tner-violence/ as an example). I recall a case that made the news a few years ago that a guy, upon finding his sexual-encounter-partner was a trans woman, killed her, was arrested and his defense was "I'm not gay"; hinting that sleeping with her was an attack on his masculinity and being gay is lesser than being straight - so both transphobic AND homophobic in how he acted. He could have just said "Look, I like you but I don't think I can do this. I'll just go out." would've been, again, transphobic in action, but not transphobic because it didn't cause harm beyond a normal rejection, which isn't harm in and of itself.

AGirlInADiaper wrote:I don't think it's right to start sticking labels on them. I don't like namecalling.
I think I've made my point a number of times so far, in spite of your fallacies, to demonstrate that at this conjecture, it is not unfair to call Hailey "transphobic" due to their actions in the past.
Trying to normalize toxic behaviour is NOT okay. At any time of the day. Or night. Or month. Or life on this planet.
Again, there's a difference between saying "I don't want your tea, thanks." and "I wanted to have Earl Gray but you're bringing me Orange Pekoe you asshole how dare you you're a horrible being for liking Orange Pekoe and I want you out of my life".